In re Richard K.
Filed 3/30/06 In re Richard K. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re RICHARD K. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD K. , Defendant and Appellant.
|
A111454
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. J35283)
|
Richard K. (appellant) appeals the dispositional order following his admission that he violated the terms of his probation. His court appointed counsel has briefed no issues and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was born in 1990. In January 2004 he was charged in Lake County with two counts of felony and six counts of misdemeanor vandalism. On February 9, 2004, he admitted one of the felony counts and three of the misdemeanor counts. He was declared a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and placed under the custody of the probation department. The court found that appellant could be held in secure confinement for a maximum term of four years. It ordered him to serve not more than 120 days in a juvenile home. Following his release, he was to be returned to the custody of his mother. He was also ordered to comply with various probation terms, including abstaining from use or possession of intoxicating beverages, marijuana, or any controlled substances, regular school attendance, restitution, community service, and effective participation in any program of counseling in which his probation officer directed him to participate.
In January 2005 appellant's probation supervision was transferred to Solano County because he and his mother had moved to Vallejo.
On August 25, 2005, the probation department notified that court that appellant had violated the terms of his probation by failing to attend drug counseling, testing positive for marijuana three times, and being suspended from school and not attending school regularly. The department recommended that appellant be detained and placed in out of home placement, with a referral to the â€
